I’m a guy, and I need feminism. Not “men’s rights.” Feminism. Here is why.

Everything that MRAs talk about that men can’t do or are socially punished for arise directly and immediately from misogyny. Not “misandry.” Misogyny.

Whether I am expressing my emotions, playing with children, baking, having sex wherein I am penetrated in any way, wearing the wrong color, talking the wrong way, moving the wrong way, being sexually harassed/assaulted, or paying too little attention to looking like I’m not paying attention to how I look, when society punishes me or derides me or marginalizes me for these things, it is happening because they are things women, not men, are expected to do, and our society at large fucking hates women.

Has that sunk in yet?

Men, can you even think of a single goddamn way you have ever been mocked that wasn’t related to something that a misogynist society sees as feminizing? Even when large men are mocked for their bodies, they are referred to as having “man-boobs,” for fucks sake.

How do you expect to improve those things with “men’s rights?” What right are you fighting for? I can tell you what I think you’re fighting for. I think you’re fighting for the right to contain and control misogyny, and direct it back at women, where you think it belongs. You want to maintain your privilege but erase its consequences, and that’s why your movement is farcical; it’s a big fucking feedback loop. How do you expect men to be free from the peripheral effects of misogyny when you refuse to even fucking believe it’s real?

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

This poor kid.

Dear Queer As In,

I'd like you to consider something, two things actually. First, the behaviors you described for which you are ridiculed, are not generally "hated" behaviors. Not in women anyway, because they are predominantly feminine behaviors. Most people DO dislike feminine behaviors when those behaviors are exhibited by men. And let me assure you, it is WOMEN who dislike feminine men, far more than men do. Granted, men are more likely to be straightforward and vocal about their dislike, and while women may speak of it only in code words and euphemisms, women's emotions are more deeply triggered by the phenomenon. I'll explain why soon.

It's is obvious that you are a feminist, because you have accepted wholeheartedly one of the primary tenets upon which feminism depends: that there are no inborn sex-specific behavioral traits. It has been proven over and over again that this is simply NOT TRUE. While there are exceptions and variations, those exceptions and variations do not define the NORM, which is this: There are sex-specific hormones and hormone combinations, and there are sex-specific differences in brain structure and body structure - beyond reproductive organs. That means there must inevitably be sex-specific urges to behave in certain ways. Some behaviors are naturally predominantly masculine and some are naturally predominantly feminine. Feminism needs to deny (or at least downplay) this irrefutable truth, in order to tell both men and women that it is perfectly normal for women to act masculine and for men to act feminine.

Not surprisingly, our "lizard brains," the home of our instincts, reject this even as our conscious brains insist upon it. Here is the result:

Normal heterosexual males are attracted to women withfeminine behavioral traits, yet they are repelled by other males with feminine traits, because their lizard brains know that the behavior is attached to the wrong bodies. Normal hetero men are not sexually attracted to masculine traits, even when attached to feminine bodies. Women don't seem to get this; they think there's "something wrong" with every man they meet who is not interested in their more masculine traits. "Men are 'intimidated' by 'strong, powerful, independent, successful' women." No. They are not intimidated, they just aren't interested. If they want to spend time with masculine people, they'll hang out with males. Men want to mate with feminine women. Shocking, I know.

The other side of the same coin is the foundation of misandry: Women are taught from childhood that masculinity is bad; it's vulgar, it lights its fart and belches the alphabet. It starts wars and kills people. It rapes and beats women. It makes millions of dollars and oppresses the poor. Yet normal heterosexual women are sexually attracted to males who are masculine. How miserable must these women be to need to be constantly on guard against their very own instincts, lest they actually find themselves liking (or God forbid, loving) that which society has deemed "bad." And then it gets worse. The men that women want to like and respect, because they display "feminine" behaviors, are repellent to women's lizard brains. Women don't want to mate with those men. They call them "creepy," or they friend-zone them. No sex with feminine men (until the biological clock can no longer be ignored. They may not be sexy, but being so "sensitive and kind," they'll probably make decent daddies, so sex with them can be tolerated. If they make enough money.) The reason this is integral to misandry, is that men can't win. Women want to despise masculine men, and women can't help despising feminine men. Of course, women can't win either, because now there's no such thing as "good" male mates for women. How can feminists not be angry at the world? For them, it sucks rocks!

The second thing I want you to consider is that while misogyny exists, it only exists in a tiny minority of men. Most men love women. They love women who act like women. They love femininity. It is feminists, who are predominantly female, that despise femininity. Perhaps you've noticed how feminists deride women who want to be happily married to masculine men, and who want nothing more than to raise children. Society does not hate women. Feminism hates women. The worst misogynists in Western Culture are feminist women.

How might the men's rights movement fix this? It's simple. But certainly not easy. Guaranteeing men the same rights that women have, will make it a little less easy for women to openly practice misandry. Men will be permitted to act like men, women will be permitted to act like women. As we were designed.

I ask everybody.To be honest, this one was pretty easy, because (as non-masculine as he claims to be) the author was succinct and specific; he didn't bury his points in Academic-ese and BS references. I can never slog through that sort of convoluted crap.

Logic +1 for identifying the problem then cogently explaining the answer.

Here's the thing...some mannosphere participants see game as serving to increase the marital bond.

To christians who know their faith, inter-gender relationships are about men and women giving each other the best quality of life possible. Feminists have worked against christianity since the current movement started, rightly seeing christian principles as incompatible with their value-taking.

Rights are not zero-sum. Giving men back their rights doesn't take away women's rights. In a very real way, it helps to secure women's rights by providing society an abundance of men who feel appreciated.

I agree, and I'm one of those who sees game as serving to increase the marital bond, at least for another generation or two. Most Christians DON'T know their faith, and it's going to take a long time to re-learn it.

Game is "going through the motions" of acting masculine, until it becomes reflexive. It's not unnatural, it's a matter of overcoming life-long unnatural suppression of masculine behavior. And masculine behavior in men fosters feminine behavior in women.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. I LOVE women and kinda like men. I especially love women who 'put out.' That is one of the main reasons God put'em on the earth. The rest of the shit is what you have to put up with just to get laid. But it's worth it. I LOVE WOMEN!

Thanks for commenting, but I would say that's not really what makes him a loser. It makes him non-masculine and therefore not suitable as a husband to a woman, which means he's a genuine minority, but not necessarily a loser.

What makes him a loser is his anger at the majority for not pandering to his minority status. He's a loser because he thinks he's entitled to more respect than he's willing to earn. He's a crybaby.

Lucid and fiery as always, Ms Suz. Alas, not even you could save this lost cause. This moron believes that he shouldn't have rights. He wants feminism. I think we should let him have it - there is none so deserving.

You're so right! He doesn't understand that it's women, not other men, who force their rigid, narrow and unrealistic standards of masculinity, onto men. Women are the ones who can't afford to allow a man to shirk his Man Up duties.

Crivens. I just got into a big pissing contest on another blog about women discussing things like foot binding, FGM, etc., as if all men were like this and all men were responsible and when I called them on it I was chewed on for quite some time. By women who are ostensively "Anti feminist". Yeah? Then why are you so quick to fall back on/defend the 'All men SUCK' language used and approved by the Feminazis?

"Churchains," by chance? Male and female, they're among the worst feminists, because they "have God on their side." The indoctrination runs very very deep, far deeper than "education." If the brainwashed could recognize their own brainwashing, it wouldn't work.

Feminism has indeed infected even atheism. There's a growing movement among atheists (along with a growing number of women - coincidence? I think not...) to censor anti-feminist speech.*sigh* So much for one of the last bastions of rational thought.

Maybe us Masculists should start using the same line that feminists use. "Masculism is for women too."

Men WANT to man up. our most valuable possession is our pride. The whole 'no matter what you do, you are a monster' line can only be sucked down by men with absolutely no pride. pride leads to honor, and all other 'virtues'. Honor, faith, Justice, mercy, flow from this wellspring.

Men do not trust other men with no pride. Heroes in fiction display pride at it's most basic... they resist torture, keep going in the face of adversity, track down the guy that drowned their wife, are 'good cops' that buck the corruption of their precinct, take pride in their accomplishments,build a baseball stadium in their back yard despite the censure of their neighbors...

Women's most valuable possession is their 'value'. This is not wrong, this is not misogynist, this just is. Men need pride, women need value. Being 'feminine' makes a man value a woman, and brings him pride.

My only question is what sort of blindness allows people to look past such clearly evident realities? What could possibly possess feminists to try and increase their own value at the expense of men's pride? Women had it all... the ultimate value, What could have possibly possessed a few of them to manipulate their way out of the value structure that ennobled, protected, and enshrined them?

Frankly, as men's pride is destroyed, women's value has dropped. a hundred years ago if a woman said she had been raped, the culprit would have been found dangling from a tree limb by his neck before the police even knew there was a complaint. Now, if a woman on a university says she has been raped, a dozen guys will likely wind up getting kicked off campus, and the rest will look at her like she's radioactive.